This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.

Even if the theory in the end proves to be untrue (which of course we don't believe) I don't see why any theory should be ignored especially when it concerns an incurable disease that only some can be treated for.

This guy really angers me, not because he doesn't believe in the theory but because he is out ruling it before giving it a chance.

i don't even care about naysayers at all, the fact that some people may believe them is not a cause of concern for me. the author(s) are probably gratified by spurring outraged retorts ... i have my own healthy skepticism about new developments but i don't have to slam things and that is because i have no vested interest in the status quo and no interest in pissing ppl off just for the sake of it. ppl like that get blocked from TIMS and that is part of the reason this is the only forum in which i participate.

I have only been aware of CCSVI for a month or so and I see a couple of incorrect statements. Is it worth posting a point by point response here? There are members here that know the ins and outs very well. Certainly there is truth there as well. I guess that would be the reason for the studies. To answer for sure and quiet the naysayers.

What worries me is that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. I'd hate to see incorrect statements be held as truth or the source of additional criticism. I just want to truth whatever that turns out to be.

LR1234 wrote:Even if the theory in the end proves to be untrue (which of course we don't believe) I don't see why any theory should be ignored especially when it concerns an incurable disease that only some can be treated for.

This guy really angers me, not because he doesn't believe in the theory but because he is out ruling it before giving it a chance.

Very well put. This guy is bursting with hypocrisy. He insists on getting all the research before making any conclusions, yet he concludes that this can't possibly be the answer because not enough research has been done. I smell a contradiction. What kind of a scientist is this? If he is really concerned about this matter his position should be a cautious uncertainty, not an outright denial. A subtle difference, but surely he should understand it. In conclusion, what a tool.

Looking at the site, I don't pick up any sense of compassion or altruism at all, which I would look for in a doctor who actually cares about people and doesn't have some sort of personal agenda. Posting photos of obese people and citing them as "examples" of everything that's wrong is pretty low. It smacks of judgementalism, as does his jab at Cheerleader.

I certainly don't know what qualifies him to be in a position of judgement on the issue of CCSVI.

What a jerk. Since when did emerging medical research immediately become labeled "myth"?? And for the record, no one ever claimed this to be a cure. Nice--NOT--that he requires people to log in before they can comment, effectively limiting the number of replies people will submit.

dx RRMS Jun. 2009...on Copaxone and LDN and waiting for my turn to be "liberated"<br />

Most doctors that help patients and are curious about this theory don't have time to blog or to attack wives of MS patients. They're busy practicing medicine and publishing papers in medical journals. A new one coming from Stanford on the first CCSVI patients treated has just been accepted. Details to come.
cheer

Who is online

This site does not offer, or claim to offer, medical, legal, or professional advice.
All treatment decisions should always be made with the full knowledge of your physicians.
This is MS does not create, endorse, or republish any content.
All postings are the responsibility of the poster. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. All users must respect our rules for intellectual property rights.